A combination hearing and trial would decide fate of Trayvon Martin's shooter

February 17, 2013|By Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel

Two major court dates loom large over the second-degree-murder case against George Zimmerman: a "stand your ground" hearing in April, and depending on the outcome, a trial June 10.

But last week, defense attorney Mark O'Mara raised an alternative. With histeam crunched for time, he suggested the defense may ultimately ask for the hearing and trial to be combined.

To an outside observer, O'Mara and other attorneys say, a combination hearing-trial would likely look a lot like a normal trial: A jury would be selected, and the state and defense would present their cases.

But once that's done,the jury would be placed in limbo while the defense tries to convince the judge to end the case herself.

Though arguing a "stand your ground" motion at trial is atypical, it's not unusual to try to resolvea case just before it goes to the jury.

Defense lawyers often askfor a "judgment of acquittal" — a ruling by a judge that the state's case is too weak to proceed — after all the evidence in a trial has been presented.

However, Zimmerman has long been expected to argue for immunity from prosecution at a pretrial hearing, commonly referred to as a "stand your ground" hearing. The Neighborhood Watch volunteer says he killed Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26 in Sanford because he was being beaten by the 17-year-old and feared for his life.

The "stand your ground" hearing is set for April 22, and Circuit Judge Debra Nelson has made it clear that she opposes any delay. The judge said last week that she wouldn't grant a continuance "unless there are extenuating, extraordinary circumstances."

But O'Mara said the defense doesn't have time to prepare its case before that date, nor does it have the money.

"We don't have the finances to pay for experts to come [at all]," he told the Orlando Sentinel. "We certainly don't have the finances to have them come twice."

Michael Grieco, a Miami-based defense lawyer and former prosecutor, said attorneys sometimes "have to get very creative if a judge is pushing a case."

"If this is a last-ditch effort to buy oneself a few more months ... then so be it, you've got to do what you've got to do," he said.

However, Robert Buonauro, an Orlando lawyer who has handled several "stand your ground" hearings, argued that combining the immunity hearing with the trial is counterintuitive.

"The whole purpose of the immunity statute is to avoid a trial," Buonauro said. "I think it's totally contrary to the concept."

The combination approach would also eliminate one of the much-heralded benefits of immunity hearings, Buonauro said: the chance to preview the state's case, and the testimony of key witnesses, well before trial.

"If I can get my client off on an immunity grounds prior to a trial, I think it's more beneficial to my client," Buonauro said. "I can't think of a situation where I would want to do it" the way O'Mara may propose.

O'Mara acknowledged that skipping the pretrial hearing would be a lost opportunity but said that would be true for both sides. He said he's confident in his case, even ifNelson decided not to ruleon immunity until after the jury's verdict.

"She could even listen to the verdict before she makes her determination," he said, adding confidently: "I'm OK with waiting until the jury acquits."

Another consideration for Nelson to weigh would be the cost. Nelson last week said she would order 500 jurors for trial, and the high-profile nature of the case brings with it the possibility of a sequestered jury or a change of venue.

Those scenarios are expensive, and that money would be wasted if, after a full trial, the "stand your ground" motion was successful.

O'Mara said that, although the trial would be costly, a combination approach would eliminate the need for a two-week immunity hearing and would also limit additional pretrial publicity, which could make jury selection more complicated.

"We're going to have literally worldwide gavel-to-gavel publicity of the immunity hearing," he said.

The defense lawyer added that the cost to taxpayers and inconvenience to jurors aren't his primary concern.

"If we have to waste some jurors' money and time to have this case handled properly, that's what the whole system is about," he said.